背景:上眼睑眼睑成形术是一种外科手术,旨在纠正随着老化而发生的典型变化到眶周区域。这个手术的结果是美观的,以及功能性。许多研究描述了对角膜的影响,眼内压,干眼症,和视觉质量。本系统评价的目的是比较不同的手术技术及其结果。
方法:作者通过在线数据库PubMed进行了文献综述,WebofScience,Clinicaltrials.gov,和中央图书馆。收集了有关手术技术,功能和美学结果以及干预措施并发症的信息。研究了六种类型的上眼睑成形术。使用CochraneRevMan分析数据。
结果:20项研究纳入我们的系统评价,9项纳入我们的荟萃分析。我们提供了关于眼内压的结果,中央角膜厚度,最平坦的角膜曲率测量,最陡的角膜曲率测量,角膜散光,视敏度,Schirmer试验1和2,泪膜破裂时间和眼表疾病指数问卷,根据手术类型。我们的荟萃分析没有显着结果。
结论:没有发现显著的结果;然而,许多研究报道了上眼睑成形术对研究结果的影响.仅报告了少量并发症,患者对美学结果感到满意。
方法:本期刊要求作者为每篇文章分配一定程度的证据。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或对作者的在线说明https://www。springer.com/00266.
Upper eyelid blepharoplasty is a surgical procedure that aims to correct the typical changes that occur with aging to the periorbital area. The outcomes of this surgery are aesthetic, as well as functional. Many studies have described an impact on the cornea, intraocular pressure, dry eye syndrome, and visual quality. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the different surgical techniques and their outcomes.
The authors performed a literature review through online databases PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and CENTRAL libraries. Information was collected about the surgery techniques and the functional and aesthetic outcomes as well as complications of the interventions. Six types of upper blepharoplasty surgery were studied. Data were analyzed using Cochrane RevMan.
Twenty studies were included in our systematic review and nine in our meta-analysis. We presented results about intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, flattest keratometry, steepest keratometry, corneal astigmatism, visual acuity, Schirmer test 1 and 2, tear film break-up time and the ocular surface disease index questionnaire, according to type of surgery. Our meta-analysis showed no significant results.
No significant results were found; however, many studies reported an impact of upper blepharoplasty surgery in the outcomes studied. Only a small number of complications were reported, and patients were satisfied with the aesthetic outcomes.
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://www.springer.com/00266 .